Javaman

"Anand Ramamurthy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Hi:
    > This might be a very frequently asked question.
    > We (family of 4) live very close to San Francisco.
    > We are planning to make a 3 week trip to Europe
    > during July 2004. I know its too early.
    > We would like to visit as many places as possible
    > (keeping in mind 3 week limitation).
    > What will be an ideal itenerary as well as best
    > mode of transportation, including the must see
    > places?
    > What will be the convinient city to start our trip and
    > what will be the convinient city to end our trip, coming
    > from San Francisco?
    > Thanks for all your help?
    > Regards,
    > -anand

Since you are in the Bay area check the airlines to see which in your area
have NON-STOP flights to Europe. Check SFO, Oakland, Sacramento, etc. I live
in Seattle and have the luxury of having Portland and Vancouver as alternate
airports. You can do the same and save money and score a non-stop flight.
Generally around ten hours from the west coast to continental Europe, it can
be nice to not have to change planes and have layovers especially with kids.
Check out some guidebooks from the library and see what sparks your
interests. For first-timers, Western European big cities are best (and
places like the U.K. and Netherlands, where everyone speaks English), but we
like to always try something new and we LOVE the trains!! Germany is our
favorite, we keep going back again and again. Check out Julie Holm's
website, I liked it the from the first time I saw it and it really shows the
real Germany that we love. http://www.dragonsholm.org/travel.htm She did a
great job with the website.
Have fun!!!
Gerry in Seattle

Deep Flayed Mares

    > PS: Please try, as much as possible, to convince your kids that the cool
    > things about traveling are in discovering the differences between life in
    > San Francisco vs elsewhere. OK, I admit it, if you haven't traveled
outside
    > the US before, this is really directed at you. I can't tell you how often
    > I've seen people get disappointed because they're thinking
    > "Why don't they do things the right way, like at home?"
    > "Why can't I get regular American food?"
    > "Why don't they understand that Americans are all over the place and speak
    > English?"
    > "Why do you have to wait forever to get the check?"
    > "Why are the elevators so small?"
    > "Why isn't everything air-conditioned?" Well, OK, they're trying to
figure
    > that one out themselves now!
    > "Why can't I get a BigGulp 32oz drink?"
    > "Why do I have to beg for ice cubes?"
    > "Why don't they give you butter for your roll?"
    > "Where's the Starbucks?" and "Why is a cup of coffee so tiny?"
    > or the most awful of all, often spoken in large groups-
    > "Why aren't they more appreciative of the fact that we won the war for
    > them?"

This list should be part of the FAQ.
---
DFM

Aarre Rinne

My favourite city in Europe is Prague; the whole place is like piece
of art. Centre is full of architecture and old town area spreads
nicely for both sides of Vltava river - combined by lovely Charles
bridge. ( http://www.ipeka.com/rinnet/viabaltica/kaarlensilta.jpg )

Some great things in Prague:

1. Perhaps best beers in the world (around 50 cents / ½ liter in pub)
2. Charles Bridge. Unbelievable views at night
3. Architecture. Did they had some "build the most beautiful tower"
contest there in medieval times or a little later?
3. Atmosphere. Lot of tourists but very relaxed feeling.
4. River. Flows in the middle of everything.
5. Prices. Wallet friendly dining & drinking

From Prague you can make a daytrip to small medieval town Cesky
Krumlov. ( http://www.ipeka.com/rinnet/eurooppa/krumlov3.jpg )


From MY opinion, if you would take a flight for example to Vienna,
from there you could rent a car and explore Austria (Alps, Salzburg),
Italia (Toscany, Garda-lake, Venice) and Czech Republic (Prague etc) -
- it would be very _European_ tour and absolutely interesting.

I'm from Finland and we do have beautiful and pure nature here but not
so much classic European things like old beautiful architecture.
Almost everything here has been buildt after WW2 so builded
environment is not so interesting. And probably you got similar nature
closer in Canada so middle and southern Europe is better better choise
for you.

Sorry for my broken English - - this is my first post to this group

Best regards
Aarre Rinne
www.ipeka.com/rinnet

?Ystein

[email protected] (Anand Ramamurthy) wrote in message news:<[email protected]. com>...

    > We (family of 4) live very close to San Francisco.
    >
    > We are planning to make a 3 week trip to Europe
    > during July 2004. I know its too early.
    >
    > We would like to visit as many places as possible
    > (keeping in mind 3 week limitation).
    >
    > What will be an ideal itenerary as well as best
    > mode of transportation, including the must see
    > places?

The by far nicest way to travel is by boat, because it gives you the
best oportunity for you to have a good time as a family while you are
travelig. If you travel by boat you are also very likely to have great
views and experiences on the trip.

By boat the Medeteranian countries and Scandinavia/Northern
Europe/Russia/The baltic nations are avalible. If you choose the last
alterntative you will have daylight until late at night i July. If you
want to travel around, visit cities etc. the temperature in northern
Europe is also nicer on that time of year. For beachlife the
Medeteranian countries is by far the best alternative. I have websites
with photoes and text from my trips in Northern Europe (St.
Petersburg, Gdansk, Berlin, Gothenburg, Aarhus etc.) on this site:
http://www.thorsnas.com/ferie2003.htm

Best regards,

Jan

Tim

"Sönke Tesch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Anand Ramamurthy wrote:
    > : We would like to visit as many places as possible
    > : (keeping in mind 3 week limitation).
    > I'll make that short: I spend two weeks in and around Berlin,
    > Germany. You want to get all of Europe in three weeks..

Some people have very little choice. If you get 50 weeks
holiday in your lifetime you can't go around wasting it!
I really do think that people who suggest that place X is worth
at least a week[1] should consider a bit more carefully: "Is this
place really worth a whole 5% of someone's total lifetime overseas
travel budget"? The place has to be really, really special for the
answer to be yes!

[1] Most outrageous claim I saw in this respect was for Comino
(it's about a square mile big with one hotel!)

Tim



    > : What will be an ideal itenerary as well as best
    > : mode of transportation, including the must see
    > : places?
    > You should first find out what you would like to see and which
    > travel conditions you expect. If you're looking for ancient stuff
    > you'll surely want to take a closer look at Rome, Greece or Turkey.
    > However that might get a bit too hot in July. If you're looking for
    > "big cities" consider Paris and London. What else: Landscape? Theme
    > parks, beaches for the kids? Museums? Relaxing or culture?
    > Then, find out if you want to do it the typical US or Japanese
    > tourist way, do as much as possible, never knowing where exactly
    > you are. Or if you'd like to see something of the country and
    > meet with locals. Photos for your friends or memories for you.
    > Europe is a lot more complex than the US, you have to focus on
    > a specific region. Also keep in mind that the more places you
    > put on your plans, the more you'll be on boring road/rail/airport.
    > Regards,
    > soenk.e

Jenn

In article <[email protected]>,
"tim" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Sönke Tesch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Anand Ramamurthy wrote:
    > > : We would like to visit as many places as possible
    > > : (keeping in mind 3 week limitation).
    > >
    > > I'll make that short: I spend two weeks in and around Berlin,
    > > Germany. You want to get all of Europe in three weeks..
    >
    > Some people have very little choice. If you get 50 weeks
    > holiday in your lifetime you can't go around wasting it!
    > I really do think that people who suggest that place X is worth
    > at least a week[1] should consider a bit more carefully: "Is this
    > place really worth a whole 5% of someone's total lifetime overseas
    > travel budget"? The place has to be really, really special for the
    > answer to be yes!
    >
    > [1] Most outrageous claim I saw in this respect was for Comino
    > (it's about a square mile big with one hotel!)
    >
    > Tim

because you have little vacation time doesn't mean that rushing from
spot to spot extends your experience -- that type trip gives you less
than you could get from watching a travel video. Less is always more --

if you spend fewer than 3 nights [and preferably 4 or 5] at any one
place [except an occasional transit stop] then you devote lots of time
to logistics and frantic 'sight seeing' -- and have almost no experience
of any place.

I didn't see Rome till my 4th trip to Italy -- and then spent 5 nights
there the first trip and 10 the second. Love Rome. Bet I wouldn't if
it had been the first 2 nights on a 12 city tour.

tastes differ -- and people should do what they want to do -- but when a
newbie with little travel experience asks for advice -- then those who
have been there and done that feel free to share their advice with them

barney

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (tim) wrote:

    > Some people have very little choice. If you get 50 weeks
    > holiday in your lifetime you can't go around wasting it!
    > I really do think that people who suggest that place X is worth
    > at least a week[1] should consider a bit more carefully: "Is this
    > place really worth a whole 5% of someone's total lifetime overseas
    > travel budget"? The place has to be really, really special for the
    > answer to be yes!

Sure: but that doesn't scale down infinitely. You could probably get to
every country in the world in 50 weeks but sometimes quality *is* more
important than quantity!

Tim

"Jenn" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "tim" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > "Sönke Tesch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > Anand Ramamurthy wrote:
    > > > : We would like to visit as many places as possible
    > > > : (keeping in mind 3 week limitation).
    > > >
    > > > I'll make that short: I spend two weeks in and around Berlin,
    > > > Germany. You want to get all of Europe in three weeks..
    > >
    > > Some people have very little choice. If you get 50 weeks
    > > holiday in your lifetime you can't go around wasting it!
    > > I really do think that people who suggest that place X is worth
    > > at least a week[1] should consider a bit more carefully: "Is this
    > > place really worth a whole 5% of someone's total lifetime overseas
    > > travel budget"? The place has to be really, really special for the
    > > answer to be yes!
    > >
    > > [1] Most outrageous claim I saw in this respect was for Comino
    > > (it's about a square mile big with one hotel!)
    > >
    > > Tim
    > because you have little vacation time doesn't mean that rushing from
    > spot to spot extends your experience -- that type trip gives you less
    > than you could get from watching a travel video. Less is always more --

Your opinion, I don't agree. I would much rather do 3 or 4 hours in
each of a dozen places (and maybe miss a bit of each place) than do
7 days in one place, however good.

    > if you spend fewer than 3 nights [and preferably 4 or 5]

IMHO there are very few places that demand 5 nights.

I don't 'do' museums though and I'm far from alone in that. I can
see that someone who does will have no difficulty spending 5
nights in many towns, but I don't believe that one should start
with the assumptiuon that a poster likes museums and is
going to max out on them

    > at any one
    > place [except an occasional transit stop] then you devote lots of time
    > to logistics and frantic 'sight seeing' -- and have almost no experience
    > of any place.

Don't agree. Obviously Tuesday is Rome, wednesday is Vienna is
pointless, but a 10 day trip between the two stopping off at all the
major points for 2-6 hours each should work. This has to be taken in
the context of someone who might be making their only trip to Europe
this decade (or more), obviously someone who has two weeks each
year to spend in Central Europe should be more focused on a region

    > I didn't see Rome till my 4th trip to Italy -- and then spent 5 nights
    > there the first trip and 10 the second. Love Rome. Bet I wouldn't if
    > it had been the first 2 nights on a 12 city tour.

Why not? Would depend on what the other cities were, but if you saw
some good bits in two days why would you hate it?

    > tastes differ -- and people should do what they want to do -- but when a
    > newbie with little travel experience asks for advice --

Where did they say they had little travel experience. They are new
to Europe but nothing said they were new to travel.

    > then those who
    > have been there and done that feel free to share their advice with them

Yeh, and I did. I just poited out that some people (actually it's many
people) go somewhat ott with the "you must spend at least 7 days in
<insert name of quite ordinary town>" to the extent that IMHO makes
the OP feel stupid for even suggsting "whole country in 14 days".

YMMV

Tim

Tim

<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > [email protected] (tim) wrote:
    >
    > > Some people have very little choice. If you get 50 weeks
    > > holiday in your lifetime you can't go around wasting it!
    > > I really do think that people who suggest that place X is worth
    > > at least a week[1] should consider a bit more carefully: "Is this
    > > place really worth a whole 5% of someone's total lifetime overseas
    > > travel budget"? The place has to be really, really special for the
    > > answer to be yes!
    >
    > Sure: but that doesn't scale down infinitely. You could probably get to
    > every country in the world in 50 weeks but sometimes quality *is* more
    > important than quantity!

Where did I suggest you should go see the (marginal) dross. All I said
was that if someone says that they want to "do europe in 21 days" you
should respect that and answer with "these are the 20 really good places
you should try and see" and not try and change the guy's plans with "you
must spend at least 10 days in X".

Tim

Jenn

In article <[email protected]>,
"tim" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > [email protected] (tim) wrote:
    > >
    > > > Some people have very little choice. If you get 50 weeks
    > > > holiday in your lifetime you can't go around wasting it!
    > > > I really do think that people who suggest that place X is worth
    > > > at least a week[1] should consider a bit more carefully: "Is this
    > > > place really worth a whole 5% of someone's total lifetime overseas
    > > > travel budget"? The place has to be really, really special for the
    > > > answer to be yes!
    > >
    > > Sure: but that doesn't scale down infinitely. You could probably get to
    > > every country in the world in 50 weeks but sometimes quality *is* more
    > > important than quantity!
    >
    > Where did I suggest you should go see the (marginal) dross. All I said
    > was that if someone says that they want to "do europe in 21 days" you
    > should respect that and answer with "these are the 20 really good places
    > you should try and see" and not try and change the guy's plans with "you
    > must spend at least 10 days in X".
    >
    > Tim
    >
    >

you DO Europe your way -- and let the rest of us suggest how to do it
our way -- I myself recommended he get Rick Steve's Europe in 22 days
for the optimal hit and run trip but you eliminated that part of the
response in order to make your little whine [and changed my suggestion
of at least 3 nights for each major stop to '10'

the OP can certainly pick and choose what makes sense to him and his
family

Robin Aylesworth

I know exactly what you mean about maybe never getting another chance
to visit Europe. That's what I was thinking when I went the first
time. I did what I call my "We were there tour" of Europe in 10 days.
It depends on what all you want to see. I had certain things in mind
that I wanted to see "before I die." Those things were (and pardon my
rushed misspellings):
Paris- Montmarte, The Eifel Tower, Notre Dame
Rome- The Colleseum, The Vatican/Sistine Chapel
Venice- St. Mark's cathedral, the canals, etc.
Florence- The art galleries, cathedrals, etc.
Germany- The Rheine, the castles in the Schwanstein area
Amsterdam

My only logistics requirement was that I had to end my trip in
Brussels, Belgium because my husband had business there. So I planned
a rather circular route. I knew that I would not be able to fit
Germany in this trip due to time, but don't leave it off your
agenda...especially the castles in Schwanstein!

I went Rome 2-Florence-Venice-Geneva-Paris 2-Brussels-Amsterdam-back
to Brussels to return home. The cities marked with a 2, we stayed 2
days each.

i think you could easily add Germany & Austria to your 3 week jaunt.

On separate trips I have also visited Spain, Portugal and Austria.

My group flew in and out of Europe, but did everything else by rail,
high-speed rail where available. I planned out a basic route, got
rough ideas of train schedules online, then had a travel agent book
rail tickets and hotels. It worked great!...and I do recommend
traveling at least 2nd class with reserved seats...much nicer! Also
where possible we used the German DER rail system, very efficient and
it LEAVES EXACTLY ON TIME - don't be late!

Something we did in Paris that I highly recommend is a company called
"Voyages A Paris" and rented "My Own Chauffeur." This was a minivan
with a driver who spoke English and for 8 hours they will take you
anywhere you want to go. We had him drive us to all the highlights, he
would wait for us then off we'd go to the next stop. It was very
reasonable! We liked it so much we hired the same driver the next day
for 1/2 a day to take us out to Versailles.

For us out of Dallas, the best trip prices entailed flying to London
first, then on to Rome. You will need to check best routes from the
west coast. But Rome, Paris, Munich, Amsterdam all have great
airports.

I still need to go back at least once more to see Greece! Australia
and New Zealand are on my list for February next year!

Hope all this helps! Have a fantastic trip! It is one you and your
family will never forget.

Deep Flayed Mares

tim <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "Jenn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > "tim" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > > "Sönke Tesch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > > Anand Ramamurthy wrote:
    > > > > : We would like to visit as many places as possible
    > > > > : (keeping in mind 3 week limitation).
    > > > >
    > > > > I'll make that short: I spend two weeks in and around Berlin,
    > > > > Germany. You want to get all of Europe in three weeks..
    > > >
    > > > Some people have very little choice. If you get 50 weeks
    > > > holiday in your lifetime you can't go around wasting it!
    > > > I really do think that people who suggest that place X is worth
    > > > at least a week[1] should consider a bit more carefully: "Is this
    > > > place really worth a whole 5% of someone's total lifetime overseas
    > > > travel budget"? The place has to be really, really special for the
    > > > answer to be yes!
    > > >
    > > > [1] Most outrageous claim I saw in this respect was for Comino
    > > > (it's about a square mile big with one hotel!)
    > > >
    > > > Tim
    > >
    > > because you have little vacation time doesn't mean that rushing from
    > > spot to spot extends your experience -- that type trip gives you less
    > > than you could get from watching a travel video. Less is always more --
    > Your opinion, I don't agree. I would much rather do 3 or 4 hours in
    > each of a dozen places (and maybe miss a bit of each place) than do
    > 7 days in one place, however good.

Doing this means that you spend a proportionally high amount of time in
transit. It also means that you will probably be exhausted after a couple of
days, and will just be waiting for it all to end. This often is the approach
that is taken by people that want to be able to say they have 'done' Europe
in 2 weeks. Why bother?
---
DFM

barney

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (tim) wrote:

    >
    > <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > Sure: but that doesn't scale down infinitely. You could probably get
    > > to every country in the world in 50 weeks but sometimes quality *is*
    > > more important than quantity!
    >
    > Where did I suggest you should go see the (marginal) dross.

Tim

You didn't. It was a conversational point, that's all. Chill, as I believe
young people say these days.

Barnaby

Xor

"tim" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > > because you have little vacation time doesn't mean that rushing from
    > > spot to spot extends your experience -- that type trip gives you less
    > > than you could get from watching a travel video. Less is always more --
    >
    > Your opinion, I don't agree. I would much rather do 3 or 4 hours in
    > each of a dozen places (and maybe miss a bit of each place) than do
    > 7 days in one place, however good

Why is that? I'm not being argumentative, I'm truly curious. What do
you get to see in 3-4 hours? Do you get much of a feel for a place?

I've spent such short times in places - usually in transit, and while
I can now say I've been there and make the most of it when I have, it
doesn't feel like I've actually *been* there.


    >
    > > if you spend fewer than 3 nights [and preferably 4 or 5]
    >
    > IMHO there are very few places that demand 5 nights.

On the other hand, IMO, pretty much any place in the world *can*
demand 5 nights, every place I've been I've always wished I had longer
there...


    > > at any one
    > > place [except an occasional transit stop] then you devote lots of time
    > > to logistics and frantic 'sight seeing' -- and have almost no experience
    > > of any place.
    >
    > Don't agree. Obviously Tuesday is Rome, wednesday is Vienna is
    > pointless, but a 10 day trip between the two stopping off at all the
    > major points for 2-6 hours each should work. This has to be taken in
    > the context of someone who might be making their only trip to Europe
    > this decade (or more), obviously someone who has two weeks each
    > year to spend in Central Europe should be more focused on a region

I wonder why Americans think this still (And I am American and it
doesn't make a lot of sense to me) - the idea that a 'trip to Europe'
is a once in a lifetime thing. I mean, why does it have to be? These
days, it's often cheaper to fly SFO - LHR than SFO-JFK (or more
frequently Orlando...).

That said, if I was only making one trip, I might like to actually
experience some of the culture/life than merely see a famous building.


    >
    > > I didn't see Rome till my 4th trip to Italy -- and then spent 5 nights
    > > there the first trip and 10 the second. Love Rome. Bet I wouldn't if
    > > it had been the first 2 nights on a 12 city tour.
    >
    > Why not? Would depend on what the other cities were, but if you saw
    > some good bits in two days why would you hate it?

FWIW I don't have fond memories of Paris, but I would love to go back
and spend more time there. I spend 2-3 days (can't recall exactly). I
had already been travelling in Germany and met up with a friend there
who had just flown in from the US. It was hectic and tiring, we were
both exhausted - me from driving from Frankfurt and he from the trip.
We at first tried to "see everything." By the 2nd day we were ready to
leave. I am sure if I go NOW, I would LOVE Paris, and I certainly
loved the rest of France. I just haven't made it back there yet (been
to other places in Europe in the meantime).

    >
    > > tastes differ -- and people should do what they want to do -- but when a
    > > newbie with little travel experience asks for advice --
    >
    > Where did they say they had little travel experience. They are new
    > to Europe but nothing said they were new to travel.

More often than not, those who try to see everything in a short time
are new to travel. Perhaps you're an exception. Tho I am truly curious
as to what your motivation is for travel, if you only spend a few
hours in a place. I ask merely because it's not something I can
comprehend.


    >
    > > then those who
    > > have been there and done that feel free to share their advice with them
    >
    > Yeh, and I did. I just poited out that some people (actually it's many
    > people) go somewhat ott with the "you must spend at least 7 days in
    > <insert name of quite ordinary town>" to the extent that IMHO makes
    > the OP feel stupid for even suggsting "whole country in 14 days".

Well, plenty of Europeans say they are spending 2 weeks in the US and
want to see "the whole country." So it does work both ways. Heck, a
friend wanted to take a 7 day trip to California/AZ and had an itinary
like "San Diego-Grand Canyon-Death Valley-Yosemite-SF-north of
SF-Monterey-Santa Barbara-LA." Doable? Sure, but why?

Not stupid, just, IMO, not realistic if one actually wants to see
something whilst travelling other than trains/planes.

MY advice - read, see what places inspire you the most, then pick a
few, and figure out best logistics to get to them. On that same trip
as the Paris trip mentioned above, we had initially had plans to go to
Italy and even toyed with Greece (we were there for 6 weeks).
Fortunately we decided to ditch that plan, ended up with France,
Spain, Switzerland, and Germany. And well worth it. Made it to Italy a
few years later....Still working on Greece.

Barbara Vaughan

tim wrote:

    > ... I would much rather do 3 or 4 hours in
    > each of a dozen places (and maybe miss a bit of each place) than do
    > 7 days in one place, however good.

My main problem with such a trip, especially if it is for more than a
few days, is that I get sensory overload and the constant travelling
from place to place, changing hotels, packing and unpacking, wears me
down. The more places you visit, the larger proportion of your total
time is spent on this kind of stuff, and on highways or in trains.

If I can stay in a place for several days and find a favorite little
place to eat and a favorite little park to walk in, it recharges my
batteries. Then I might make a brief stop or two en route to the next
long stopover. I really can't stand changing hotels every day. It just
kills your time.

Barbara